From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cutty v. Mecham

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 7, 2023
2:23-cv-1907-TLN-KJN (PS) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2023)

Opinion

2:23-cv-1907-TLN-KJN (PS)

11-07-2023

STEPHEN J. CUTTY, Plaintiff, v. DAVID A. MECHAM and TITAN REVENUE SOLUTIONS, Defendants.


ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

KENDALL J. NEWMAN UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff filed this case in September of 2023, and on November 2, defendant answered. (ECF Nos. 1, 5.) A review of the docket indicates defendant is attempting to appear without the aid of an attorney. However, it appears the complaint is brought against him and his company, Titan Revenue Solutions. It is unclear from the pleadings what kind of entity is Titan Revenue Solutions, but case law is clear that entities cannot appear pro se. See Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 202 (1993) (“It has been the law for the better part of two centuries, for example, that a corporation may appear in the federal courts only through licensed counsel . . . the rationale for that rule applies equally to all artificial entities.”); D-Beam Ltd. P'ship v. Roller Derby Skates, Inc., 366 F.3d 972, 973-74 (9th Cir. 2004) “Corporations and other unincorporated associations must appear in court through an attorney.”); see also, e.g., Aellis O. v. Connor, 2022 WL 2229421, *3 (S.D. Cal. June 21, 2022) (dismissing pleadings filed by pro se party on behalf of d/b/a entity where it was unclear the status of the entity); Clancy v. Bromley Tea Co., 2014 WL 212603, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 17, 2014) (“Defending a civil suit without the benefit of counsel is problematic enough for an individual, but as corporations, Defendants may not appear pro se.”); Saks v. International Longshore & Warehouse, 2011 WL 13176423 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 13, 2011) (“However, because he is not an attorney, Saks cannot represent a partnership, even one of which he is a partner.”).

Accordingly, defendant is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE, within 14 days of this order, why the answer (ECF No. 5) should not be stricken from the record to the extent it purports to answer for the apparent entity Titan Revenue Service. Defendant may show cause by filing documentation indicating the status of Titan Revenue, may request time to obtain an attorney if needed, or may make other arguments as appropriate.


Summaries of

Cutty v. Mecham

United States District Court, Eastern District of California
Nov 7, 2023
2:23-cv-1907-TLN-KJN (PS) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2023)
Case details for

Cutty v. Mecham

Case Details

Full title:STEPHEN J. CUTTY, Plaintiff, v. DAVID A. MECHAM and TITAN REVENUE…

Court:United States District Court, Eastern District of California

Date published: Nov 7, 2023

Citations

2:23-cv-1907-TLN-KJN (PS) (E.D. Cal. Nov. 7, 2023)